Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:2015 FIFA corruption case[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being associated with, or convicted as a result of, the 2015 FIFA corruption case, is not a defining trait per WP:NONDEF, although it is understandably fresh in the minds of some editors and readers. In 20 years will Chuck Blazer be defined primarily by the case? WP:SMALLCAT also applies- aside from the handful of accused persons and organizations, how can this category expand without further over-categorizing articles? Need we list every entity linked from 2015 FIFA corruption case? WP:BLPCAT also applies: if we don't normally categorize, say actors, by "Actors who appeared in X", we shouldn't categorize people or organizations as "entities involved in event X". The purpose of categories is to allow readers to find related articles: those can be already found at 2015 FIFA corruption case. Unless there are numerous sub articles directly related to this ongoing event (see for instance Category:September 11 attacks, I don't think the category is very useful. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and upmerge the eponymous article if necessary). In theory this could be re-created if we ever get sufficient articles actually about this subject. If kept, should be renamed to something more general (e.g. "Corruption in FIFA" or even "Corruption in sport") and most of the parent category tags removed. DexDor (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't the deletion of this be left until a later time. One extreme event of note relates to Category:Watergate scandal. Perhaps the event is not as notable as say Category:Late Cretaceous extinctions lol but time may tell in regard to significance. GregKaye 13:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we make decisons based on current scenarios. In time this event may have multiple books devoted to it, with certain elements so predictably discussed that categorization is appropriate. But Wikipedia should always lag behind trends, not ride ahead of them. Note there are several articles that are directly related to the Watergate scandal (would not exist without it), which makes categorization all the more appropriate for that event. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Documentation pages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's confusing having a category whose name does not make clear that it's for template documentation under a category that is for template documentation. There is no explanation of how the inclusion criteria of this category differ from the inclusion criteria of its only parent.
For info: I've recently removed Category:Wikipedia documentation pages from this category as it does not belong under Category:Template documentation. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, instead of an upmerge, the subcategory should be renamed to "Category:Template documentation pages". Category:Wikipedia documentation pages shouldn't be under a category for template documentation if it contains documentation pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Snuggle/User message/doc) that are nothing to do with templates. DexDor (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Documentation pages to Category:Transcluded documentation pages. The "Wikipedia" ones seem to be templates (or at least transcluded pages) too, not sure why it was removed from the parent. I'll go ahead and put it back. - jc37 04:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you agree that pages such as Help:Table/example row template/doc should not be under Category:Template documentation? If so how do you think the category structure should be arranged? P.S. re "not sure why it was removed from the parent" see the edit summary of the edit that removed it and the the nom of this CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once upon a time, only templates could be transcluded. That time is long past. we now have transcluded pages, sub-pages, and on the other side of templates (coded structures) we have media wiki, and modules. This, among other reasons, is why I suggest we group them all under "transcluded pages". And this way, we can retain the subcats of the transclusions catted by namespace (as they currently appear to be), if that is what is wanted. I'd like to avoid a complete overhaul. For one thing, when dealing with templates and transclusions and related categories, we start nudging near where automated processes are, so it's usually better to have a light touch, unless a reorg is really necessary. And with that in mind, I'm not opposed to a 'Keep (no merge, no rename) result as well. - jc37 15:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Casinos completed in 1879[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a tiny number of pre-20th century casinos, therefore to put each of them in a "Completed in 18XX" category does not aid navigation. Propose deletion and upmerge to Category:Casinos completed in the 19th century and "Category:Commercial buildings completed in 18XX" categories, per overcategorizaton and WP:SMALLCAT. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To make this more tricky, the Stockbridge Casino, was not a casino in the modern sense, but in the 19th-century sense, which is a public building, often in a park, that is a place to gather for recreation. The Belle Isle Casino in Detroit is such a building that still has that function. Although the current Belle Isle Casino was built in 1908, it was preceeded by a different one built in 1884.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. My only question is whehterr there may be enough casinos worldwide to justify Category:Casinos completed in 1880s, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:24 Hours of Spa winning drivers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (merge to Category:24 Hours of Spa drivers). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence shown that winning this race is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these drivers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the race has been going since 1924, with some of the earlier drivers it was a key part of their career. For other drivers it is famous for their deaths. The race has been a notable and prestigious centerpiece of events such as the ETCC, World Sportscar Championship, FIA GT Championship and Blancpain Endurance Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.146.88 (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a sub-race that has been part of championships. We do not have categories for individual race winners for the vast majority of races of this type (Le Mans doesn't count, as it often hasn't formed part of a championship, and even when it has, it is significantly more notable and noteworthy), and I see no reason why this should be an exception. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do. There are cats and templates for this race, Le Mans, Daytona, Dakar, Sebring, Macau and Bathurst, among others. The Spa race has been part of a handful of championships, but is sometimes standalone.79.64.24.52 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost every single entry in this category is already in the regular category - in fact, I'm not sure if any aren't, and if they aren't, that means someone added the category in wrong in the first place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "someone added the category in wrong in the first place" see WP:SUBCAT. DexDor (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that, for whatever reason, has not been the way things have been followed. Regardless of that, I looked at the first four or five entries from this category, and each and every one of them were in the main race category. If there are any drivers who aren't in both, then of course they should be upmerged. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be better to merge to Category:24 Hours of Spa drivers in case any have been categorized properly or get recategorized before this CFD is closed. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dry counties in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The NJ category name is quite ambiguous, IMO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize places by what laws they (currently) have (e.g. we don't have categories for things like US states where wearing seatbelts is compulsory, countries where homosexual acts are illegal). This sort of thing is much better handled by a list - such as this one. Towns etc do not belong under Category:Alcohol law (they belong in Category:Populated places etc). DexDor (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Historically important distinction. pbp 14:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "We don't normally..." is not an actual rationale, absent a specific counter-reason, for not doing something, especially something that is useful. Also, unlike other random laws, American alcohol laws like dry laws, with their local options, are both explicitly geography based AND have a direct effect on the culture, norms, and even history of towns and counties. --Calton | Talk 14:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all What we do is categorize based on defining characteristics, and we do that even if we don't normally categorize on that basis on characteristics that might seem comparable. The status of these dry laws is a defining characteristic of these communities in Kentucky and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, it should add "alcohol" in there somewhere, since it isn't about climatologically dry places -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete per WP:NONDEF, a single legal issue is not a defining characteristic of a place. If kept, agree with IP number on rename for disambiguation purposes. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Edited this comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – Useful categories that serve to better-organize Wikipedia content by defining characteristics. North America1000 08:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. This is interesting to an alchohol control persepctive, but it is too changing. At one point 100% of counties in the US were dry, so by the rules of if a category every applied things should be in it, any county that exist in the US in 1930 should be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This category only applies to currently dry categories, and if we were to create a category or extend this one to formerly dry counties, I'd argue that it should only apply to counties that are dry as a result of county action, not state or national action. pbp 03:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am not sure about this, but we certainly should not delete this out of hand. At worst listify before deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can we decide that in this case, things only get in if they are "currently" that. That goes against the whole process of categorization in WIkipedia. It is way to presentist. Even more so, this category itself is way o presentist. Alcohol regulation has a long history, and to only focus on what it looks like at present is much to specific. Also, while being try in 1930 is not particularly interesting, why is it not notable that a county was dry in 1960 if it is not in 2015?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should have one category for currently dry counties, and another for formerly dry counties. These should only contain counties where the decision to be dry was at the county level; therefore excluding wholly dry states and nations. pbp 23:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't have any categories with "current" in the name. Current is temporary, so not useful for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Current' wouldn't have to be in the name. Also note that we have categories for not necessarily permanent aspects, like "Companies based in...". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an important defining distinction in a community's character, especially in the southern US, and I can speak from personal experience some towns in NJ define themselves that way and market themselves on this point, especially resort towns like Ocean City, New Jersey. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some towns is not good enough, WP:NONDEF says "... reliable sources commonly and consistently define ...". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a defining aspect of a county in many parts of the U.S To the concern that this is temporary, I would argue that this characteristic tends to be a long-term one, and votes to change or modify this characteristic are difficult and often don't succeed. If we're concerned that a category may not permanently represent something, let's take out all the "Companies based in..." and metropolitan area categories -- these are shifting sands compared to dry counties! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Converts to Messianic Judaism from Judaism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Messianic Jews consider themselves Jews, so converting from Judaism to Messianic Judaism is impossible to them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing category name and small cat with just one article which is already categorized in Category:Messianic Jews. Category:Converts to Messianic Judaism, which only contains Category:Converts to Messianic Judaism from Judaism, can probably be deleted at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 11:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per the Conversion of Paul the Apostle as just one example of a person who can be considered to have take on faith as per Messianic Judaism. The common name for these categories comes from the tree Category:Religious converts with extensive contents including Category:Converts to Buddhism, Category:Converts to Christianity, Category:Converts to Hinduism, Category:Converts to Islam and Category:Converts to Judaism. It would be bias to delete rather than, for instance, to rename the category. GregKaye 13:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree both with nomination per Liz (it's very confusing this way, plus WP:SMALLCAT issue) and also agree with part of opposing argument (it is a conversion after all). The best solution is probably to merge this category to Category:Converts to Christianity from Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very existence of this category is an attack on the Messianic Jewish point of view. Having this category is endorsing one Point of view in the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge (fully) -- We are talking about one article, apparently about an actor, though he seems to be missing actor categories. Messianic Jews remain Jews, though they no doubt cease to be orthodox, reformed, etc. However, I am not sure that it is necessary to distinguish converts from Messianic Jews in general. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, many, many Jews consider Messianic Jews to not be Jews at all. To make things more complex, a certain percentage of Messianic Jewish converts come not from Judaism nor from atheists or Christians or people of other religions with identifiable Jewish ancestry, but are people with no recognized Jewish ancestry so even those who would accept that a Jew who becomes a Messianic Jew can still be a Jew will not accept these people as Jews. A significant portion of Messianic Jews in the US are African-Americans with no known Jewish ancestry. Messianic Jews who previously were part of the religious community of Judaism are only a sub-set of the larger movement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full upmerge of Peterkingiron, as an improvement to my earlier suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People executed by Lan Xang[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unneeded an inaccurate category. The only article there, Phommathat, wasn't really 'executed' by the Lan Xang kingdom as he was its head. Instead, he was killed as part of a coup. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading his biography, it states that Phommathat was killed by his aunt, Nang Keo Phimpha, not by the kingdom of Lan Xang. Liz Read! Talk! 11:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it sounds like a murder or assassination, not an execution. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty - the one person in the category was not executed by the state. I highly suspect there were people executed by Lan Xang, but until we have articles on them, we do not need this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cycling by city in Australia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 11:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At this stage this is an over-categorisation as there is no similar category of "Cycling by city by country", and neither Category:Cycling by city nor Category:Cycling in Australia are overpopulated. If needed in the future, it should follow the naming convention for Category:Transport by country and city that is "Cycling in Australia by city". ELEKHHT 00:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment the whole cycling category tree, and set of articles were effectively abandoned by some editors in 2013 as far as i can tell, the category was created simply to start a process of rebuilding - if it offends get rid of it, it is all a bit ho hum... it will take time to rebuild and create articles.User:JarrahTree 00:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't "offend", it just doesn't help navigating at this stage. --ELEKHHT 01:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's sufficient that the contents of this category are categorized in Category:Cycling by city. Liz Read! Talk! 11:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on the basis its probably premature (with only two articles in it) and mis-named (surely it should be "Cycling in Australia by city"). Sionk (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not helpful. GregKaye 13:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Southeast Ark-La-Tex[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization of a nonexistent subregion deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeast Ark-La-Tex.

Yet another attempt to pump up Fairview Alpha, Louisiana.

See also:

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 13#Ark-La-Tex • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_7&oldid=1077828623"